About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 13
MSNBCW 12
CSPAN 11
CNN 7
CNNW 7
CSPAN2 7
CNBC 1
KQED (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 74
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 74 (some duplicates have been removed)
does this leave him? assume that he gets confirmed, he has to be a tough -- a tough guy at the pentagon. he is going to be tough with congress. he has to deal with the potential of the sequester, fighting for the budget that he does get, dealing with all of the problems that come at you when you are in charge of the pentagon and the generals and the other members of the joint chiefs are going to feel they can run over him. >> we'll see about that. i assume that every general with any number of stars was watching intently yesterday, and might have had that thought in mind. you said another important word, which is sequester. it's going to be a huge mess over there trying to, first, anticipate this, and then deal with whatever the new reality is. i do think that it was ugly yesterday. it was ugly on both sides. the white house wasn't so much from what i heard defending his performance as saying that those mean republicans also performed in an ugly and bad and not very attractive way. i don't think anybody looked particularly good in that showdown. i also think it's very clear that this is
senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet member in the history of the country but apparently now this is the time and this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. "today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week in brussels, the united states will meet with our allies to talk about the transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial, and our next secretary of defense should be there. for the sake of national security, it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down
. we are reading about a $3 billion cut in the military health care system. the pentagon could be restructuring contracts. what do you want to say about those areas? guest: training is going to be cut. dod has said only unit preparing to deploy will be training. everybody else in the air force and navy, the planes will be grounded. they will take the money they would have used to do the training and shifted into the war account to pay for afghanistan. try care -- tricare is what you mentioned. people will still get benefits can be seen by doctors. host: a big fight in washington over the defense aspect. what else should we know about the defense area? guest: there will be an impact. there are two sides of sequestration. there is the side that we need to cut federal spending and defense needs to play a role. talking to people in the pentagon, a lot of them would agree with that. the problem is they are halfway through the year. they have not been preparing for this at all. they will have to squeeze all of these cuts into a six-month period. the next six months, it is implemented
the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think there are good ways to do it. walk us through some of the key points. >> i do think the defense budget will come under pressure, even if we do get a deal. there are ways to reduce costs go after the defense enterprise rather than balance the budget on the back of the force. first cutting unnecessary overhead. the pentagon and d.o.d. has grown by more than 100,000 civilians in the last decade. we can pare those back now that we're coming out of a period of war. >> i thought your civilian argument was great. we've been through these wars and you're saying you can take it right back down without losing any national securi
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
of the pentagon that i'm willing to do this. we are never again going to get to cut the pentagon back. the pentagon hasn't had any significant cuts for 30 years. >> josh green, is that the political equivalent of a liger, a lion and tiger combined to make an animal we have never seen before. rand paul and howard dean agreeing that the sequester should go through because, hey, defense -- >> hadn't occurred to me in quite those terms, but, yes, i suppose it could be a liger. >> there have always been contingent of liberal democrats that have wanted to go after the pentagon because its budget has grown enormously since 9/11. what you haven't had is a kind of republican analog. there have been a few people here, walter jones, congressman in north carolina, ron paul, in fact, was a big advocate of this, but only in the last couple of years, and really only in the last 18 months since the sequester cuts have loomed have you seen this tension between small government anti-tax republicans and pro-defense republicans. it's really a sort of tug-of-war between their two interests. traditionally
, that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed the -- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are tough. the
furloughs. our pentagon correspondent barbara starr has one worker's stories. she's joining us. barbara? >> wolf, we've heard about this fancy washington word sequester for months now. what does it really mean? it means for hundreds and thousands of federal workers trying to figure out how to live on less. maintaining fighter jets and warships at the ready, providing care at military hospitals, crucial military functions done by some 800,000 civilian workers. now the pentagon has told congress these workers will be forced to stay home one day a week without pay if mandatory spending cuts are not averted. >> everybody is waiting to hear. it's definitely become the new "f "word here. furlough. >> for federal workers it will mean painful decisions. peter is already making plans. >> i'll pay those core bills. i'll pay the mortgage and the utilities and then you live on what's left. >> the head of the government workers union says his people have already suffered. >> already these employees have suffered a 27-month pay freeze. now a 20% pay cut. >> the impact of a one day a week furlough for
of republicans clearly would rather see the sequestration acts fall on the pentagon than allow for any higher tax ref it's an interesting statement of conservative priorities at this point to me. >> michael, there was an ad lib line in the state of the union. it seemed to me at least, look, i don't want to do benefit cuts in social security unless republicans first open up on more revenue. let's say in the unlikely event republicans do say they're open to more revenue, whether it's closing loopholes, deduction, there was a letter yesterday calling on obama to flatly rule out any benefit cuts in medicare, medicaid, social security and that would include chained cpi. give as you little preview if obama does go down this road what he's going to be facing within his own party if he touches chained cpi, for instance. >> there is going to be really strong opposition. i think a lot of the opposition may be all 100 of the members who signed that member were entirely sincere about it. at the same time, when deal get done in washington, there's a necessary degree of posturing and theatrics. you need to hav
103 different stem -- science, technologies, engineering and math -- programs within the pentagon alone. consolidating those would save $1.7 billion over the next ten years. these are programs that are not necessarily initiated by congress, by the way. so they do have the flexibility to make those changes. department of defense tuition assistance program totally duplicates our veterans tuition assistance program. so you can do in service have this access to tuition while in service and then have the identical tuition access afterwards and you can claim them both. there's nothing wrong with wanting togy an educational benefit to our troops, but we don't need to do it twice. that's a significant savings of $4.5 billion. alternative energy. we have a department of energy. their whole goal is to work on alternative energy and renewable energy and efficiency within energy. the department of defense is spending $700 million a year on research in alternative energy that totally duplicates everything we're doing everywhere else. so there's $00700 million that we should not be spending at
talk shows and defended the man nominated to succeed him at the pentagon. panetta suggested the tough questioning senator hagel faced during third's capitol hill hearing, was driven by politics. >> it is pretty obvious the political knives were out for chuck hagel. what disappointed me is that they talked a lot about past quotes but what about when a secretary of defense is confronting today? we did not see enough time spent on discussing those issues. in the end that is what counted. >> he says hagel should have been questions about issues like afghanistan, the middle east, and the looming budget cuts at the pentagon but he came underfire for past statements of israel, iran, and u.s. nuclear strategy. at least 12 republicans plan to vote against hagel while only two, so far, have said they would vote for him. that is congress ran of mississippi, and a senator from nebraska. observers on both sides thought hagel did not do such a great job at the hearing. >> disconcerting thing, obviously fox anyone that watched it, he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that he knew w
in atlanta. and we will hear about the suspect's military background from barbara starr at the pentagon. paul, to you first. bring us up to speed on the hunts for this ex-cop, his former colleagues describing him as armed and extremely dangerous. >> reporter: that's right, michael. and in fact in his manifesto, he says i have a barrett 50, meaning a semiautomatic sniper rifle. behind me you can see officers are on high alert. not far from here in riverside, california early this morning, dorner is suspected of fatally killing one officer and critically injuring another one, as they were on patrol here in riverside. and then earlier in the morning, in corona, california, some lapd officers, who were assigned to security detail of an officer, who was mentioned in the manifesto and was off duty, these two officers were driving in corona, getting off a freeway, when they believe that dorner opened fire on them. one of those officers suffered from a grazing wound to the forehead. so in all, three separate shooting incidents involving people here. dorner apparently having an ex--military record. wh
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
federal government except the pentagon. all of a sudden the last couple of months hitting this arbitrary political target is vital. what is vital, as i said, is having a deficit strategy that's consistent with sound economic growth and making sure that we strengthen the middle class and that means as a first step to make sure that our deficits, as the economy improves, as we grow, that our deficits are not growing faster than g.d.p. and that we stabilize the debt as a percentage of g.d.p. because if you don't, as the economy improves, higher government borrowing -- we need to adopt that strategy and adopt it now. have it kicked in over a period of time. we just got very good news that the rate of per capita increase in health care costs is actually at the lowest level of 50 years. we need to continue to adopt strategies to keep that -- those costs increase low. as as demographic changes means baby boomers retire and we clearly need to keep working on those issues. but let me just sum up where we are in terms of our deficit reduction targets. over the last little over two years we have no
: democrats say they have a plan the massive defense cuts that are looming over the pentagon. we'll give you a hint. it includes billions of dollars in more taxes. we'll ask chris wallace about this. owe is coming up. bill: crews are racing to repair damage from hurricane sandy still to this day in time for memorial weekend. remember that shot, the iconic roller coaster in the ocean? it is still there. ♪ [ male announcer ] start with a groundbreaking car. good. then invent an entirely new way to buy one. no. no. no. yes! a website that works like a wedding registry. but for a car. first, you customize it. then let people sponsor the car's parts as gifts. dad sponsors the engine for your birthday. grandma sponsors the rims for graduation. the car gets funded. then you pick up your new dodge dart at the dealership. and all that's left to do is say thanks. easy. ♪ chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for motorcycle insurance. geico, see how much you could save. bill: a billion dollars in bets made by one person. former san diego mayor maureen o'connor admitted to using tw
. >> pentagon spokesman george little talked about how sequestration would affect the defense budget. glmpleght first, as you know, the sequestration goes in to effect for the remain of the year. it will require that the department of defense to cut roughly $46 billion from the level of funding provided on the 2013 continuing resolution. all of the last seven months of the fiscal year. by law, sequester would apply to all of the dod budget. including wartime spending. the only exception is that the president has indicated his intend to -- personnel funding from sequestration. dod leaders support the decision, it does not mean that other budget accounts will be cut by larger amounts to offset the exemption. accounted by account item by item. cuts to the operating portion of the dod budget must be equal in percentage at the let of appropriations accounts. for example, army active operation maintenance, navy reserve operation and maintenance, and air force guard. for the investment the dollars cut must be allocated. that means more than 2500 programs or projects that separately identified need to
from georgetown, serve as my chief of staff at the c.i.a. and then followed me to the pentagon as my chief of staff. and also someone who's had a public affairs at the pentagon, george little, who is also someone who both graduated and later taught here at georgetown. talented young individuals who have been at my side every day for the last four years at both the c.i.a. and the pentagon, and i am deeply grateful for their work for me and on behalf of the nation and i am deeply grateful for georgetown for training such extraordinary public servants. and speaking of extraordinary public servants, i think many in this audience know that there's a georgetown professor that the president has nominated to serve as the next secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara uni
about their capabilities and potentially u.s. vulnerabilities. let's bring in our pentagon correspondent barbara starr. she's investigating what is going on. what are you finding out, barbara? >> so far, wolf, u.s. officials aren't saying much about this. so the question is, is it iran showing the capabilities of one of the u.s.'s most secret spy airplanes? iran claims this is classified video from a u.s. spy drone. >> this aircraft has had many flights in countries around iran. in operations that have taken place in pakistan, this aircraft has provided guidance. >> u.s. officials are trying to figure out what exactly iran has in hand. in washington thursday, defense secretary leon panetta wasn't talking. >> did iran hack our drone, mr. secretary? >> most alarming will be if iran's claim is true that it dekripted a video from one of america's most secret aircraft. >> looking at the video, it certainly seems to be genuine but i think it's a give away that you can see that the video in places is masked by what looked like frames in a glass cover. >> since it captured in the drone in 2011,
. as is widely recognized, sequestration over the next 10 years apply to the pentagon budget would only reduce it in inflation adjusted terms to what it was in 2007 a. the most powerful military in the world -- 2007, as the most powerful military in the world engaged in a war in iraq and the challenge in afghanistan. if members of congress pay attention to the facts, they will see a clear path to dramatically reduce pentagon spending without undermining america's position as being the most powerful nation on the planet. and nobody has done a better job of highlighting a path forward, an area of opportunity, than walter pinkus writhing on the pages of the "washington post" over the last couple years as he details the sweep of our nuclear weapons program and the spending trajectory. this morning's latest offering should be required reading for every member of congress and the ones who whine the loutest should be forced to read it -- loudest should be forced to read it twice. he details a vast array of nuclear weapons already deployed, ready to be deployed within 30 minutes, a relic of our conten
. the abuse and waste and the fraud is astoppedding. i think the pentagon needs to be paired down. we need the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for time so i would, if i could, have the joint chiefs go down the line, quickly, if you can answer with yes or no, whether you agree with the general characterization that the senator made. that'd be great. [laughter] >> let me try it. it's a good question. it's a fair question. i don't -- i can't speak for senator hagel, but my interpretation of that is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say which was that we had accumulated over the decade post-9/11 when our budget was just kept going up over year, and i said this in lo gist ticks. when the budget goes up year in and year out, it's fair to say that when you had a management problem, all of our managers, they -- it was easy to reach for more money to solve your managing problem, whether it's a technical program or problem or something like that. it was noticeable as secretary in logistics that in some places that having had accumulated ov
is astounding. the pentagon needs to be pared down. me the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. -- the pentagon needs to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for times. you agree with this general perception that senator hagel -- chuck hagel made. that would be great. >> that is a good question. it is a fair question. i cannot speak for senator hagel. my interpretation is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say. we had accumulated over the decade post 9/11 when our budget was going up every year. when your budget goes year and year out, it is fair to say we have a management problem, all of our managers, it was easy to reach for more money to solve your managing problem, whether it is a technical problem in a program or something like that. it was noticeable to me that the logistics in some places that have accumulated over the decades. that is my secretary gates started his efficiency initiative, which i was part of. our efforts to reform the system improved our performance. in parallel, we have absorbed billions
, when it comes to cuts, maybe it's not as bad as the pentagon and others are warning. because he says republicans should argue that overall defense spending is still on the rise. now, cornyn admits that this is even a change for him. help said he would listen to leon panetta and others say these across the board spending cuts would be devastating. but he says he looked into it and he decided the best message for himself and other republicans, and of course this is the number two senate republican, is to say, you know what, maybe it's not going to be that bad. but as you well know, wolf, arguing that any cuts in military spending is an anthem ma to most republicans so i would imagine he's going to get some backlash on that messaging when he talks to republicans about it tomorrow. >> when it comes to gop legislation to prevent the negative impact from the sequester, what are you hearing, what's going on? >> reporter: what's going on right now is there is sort of the leading idea among senate republicans for a proposal that they will probably vote on this week. is to give the president f
at the pentagon and military readiness and what that will mean. >> he is at the pentagon now moments away from being sworn in. it could be kathleen seb i will sibilius. chuck hagel has my money. i will be there. if it's not chuck hagel, i will walk out. >> in protest? >> yeah. we wanted hagel. what's going on? >> quick story, public policy poling who we know ppp polled. they did a very, very important study, bill. they polled democrats and republicans to find out who their favorite fried chicken restaurant was. and they put it up against kfc. >> yeah. >> and chick-fil-a. >> popeye's. >> they just put it betweenthies two. i am with you. i say popeye's. popeye's keeps it real but kfc and democrats. democrats perform kfc while 48% of republicans chose chick-fil-a. >> of course. they are homophobic anti-marriage equality. >> exactly. what i found even more interesting out of this pole pole se /* /* poll, 43% of republicans say the nasty it al y'all food restaurant is quote a quality source of authenticethnic food. 43% of republicans say olive guardn is a quali
stopper in all of this, wolf. >> thank you very much, barbara starr at pentagon. >>> up next here in "the situation room," a feud involving the actor alec baldwin and a new york post photographer. there's different versions about what happened. that's coming up next. the ones with the strong shoulder to lean on, the ones we're named after, and the ones named after us. it takes all kinds of good to make a family. at new york life, everything we do is to help you keep good going. music: "make someone happy" music: "make someone happy" ♪it's so important to make someone happy.♪ it's so important to make meone happy.♪ ♪make just one someone happy ♪and you will be happy too. then you're going to love this. right now they're only $14.95! wow-a grt deal just got a whole lot better. hurry. $14.95 won't last. >>> here's a look at this hour's hot shots. in new york, thousands line the streets to mark the year of the snake at the festival last sunday. >>> in bali, a beautiful sunset over the water. >>> in california, paragliders come in for a landing over the beach. send in your photos to
immediate to both operate inside the pentagon, and that's -- you heard robert gibbs, former press secretary yesterday say it was a little disconcerting watching him give those answers. they made a strategic decision not to have a debate with those republican senators. trying to not start fights, but was he too passive? >> there was a way to push back. david sanger, he could have said i disagree with you about the surge. senator mccain, you're my great friend, but let's talk about what's really going on. we have 66,000 troops at afghanistan right now. he didn't pivot. he didn't push back. he didn't fight. david brooks, your columnist in "the "new york times"" suggested to chuck this weekend that he should even go so far as saying to the president, mr. president, do you have second thoughts? should i withdraw? that's rather more than i would have expected at this point. >> you know, i think there were two remarkable elements to the testimony that former senator hagel gave. he seemed unprepared on basic issues. we were discussing iran before. he had a difficult time even articulating the presi
that is relate to the pentagon and to the u.s. military that will just be held in abians -- >> what do you think the british military and the french think when leon panetta turns up? >> well, they like leon panetta but what they will think is what they have been thinking for the last 2 1/2 years, is that the republican party in the united states has gone off the rails and is obstructing the normal order of business of the world's only super power, and this is the first time, martin, in the history of the defense department going back to the 1940s that there's been a filibuster of a nominee to head that department and i would wager that if it went to its predecessor that the department of war going all the way back in american history, this has never been done. these people are out of control in their obstructionism and the only thing to do is fight them all the way, and there are new tools that the president unveiled in his state of the union to do that with. the president should go to enlisted personnel, retired enlisted personnel all over the united states and say, chuck hagel is the first of
no auditable books in the pentagon. panetta, that's the one agency of government that has never submitted an audited set of books in history. >> bill: wow. >> not one -- and frankly by itself, that would i think provide an ability to really see where we're throwing money away. and again, secretary panetta, to his credit, has got a mandate within the four branches to basically say 2014, we've got to do this. frankly, it is going to be interesting to see if they can hit this goal. the size of the pentagon is bigger than 90 countries gdp. so but again so yes there's definitely smart savings that you can do there. again, i would go back to the afghanistan expenditure $2 billion a week we're spending over there. no one thinks we're going to have a combat mission after 2014. so you know, that's money that we're not going to be spending. and so really, the opportunities are there to avoid again by the way, the bipartisan policy center, "new york times" yesterday, said a million jobs will be lost if sequestration goes through. cbo says 1.4. >> bill: congressman, a lot of battles to fight. we're g
to the pentagon and spending. and the republicans decided that's the only leverage they have over obama to make real cuts in spending, which the administration has shown no inclination to do. i think what obama wants to do is to go out as one indicated, campaign in the country against the republican position. and i think he'll try to portray the republicans as he did in the campaign as protecting the rich, protecting the tax loopholes that the the rich have, the big corporations and be willing to cut from medicare, food stamps, et cetera. so his position is i represent the people, they represent ideology. i represent the folks and they he represent the rich. and he won the election on that kind of argument. he won on the fiscal cliff, on that kind of argument. if he came out to win the next round on the sequester, i think he will have weaken and fractured the republican house in a way that will clear the way to his being the dominant actor in washington for the next term and completed the agenda he started in years one and two that the republican house had stopped in years three and four. >> br
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 74 (some duplicates have been removed)